Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 3741
DELHI HIGH COURT
S.P. Garg, J.
Nandu Sahani - Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi - Resopndent
Criminal Appeal No. 96 of 2012
Decided On : 04-03-2015
For the Appellant :Mr. Chetan Lokur, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Navin K. Jha, APP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for corroboration when relying on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, especially when the witness is a child. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of evaluating the evidence of a child witness carefully and ensuring adequate corroboration before relying on their testimony.
Headnote:
Conviction - Prosecutrix - Sections 363/354/376 IPC - [Sections 363, 354, 376 IPC] - The court discussed the prosecution's case, the inconsistencies in the evidence, and the lack of corroboration for the prosecutrix's testimony. The judgment highlighted the need for corroboration when relying on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and emphasized the importance of evaluating the evidence of a child witness carefully. The court referred to the case of 'State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash' to support its decision to give the appellant the benefit of doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 363/354/376 IPC based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, a child witness. The prosecution's case relied on the testimony of the prosecutrix, who made conflicting statements at different stages of the proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's conviction was primarily based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, which lacked corroboration. The court highlighted the inconsistencies in the prosecutrix's statements and the lack of supporting evidence, ultimately giving the appellant the benefit of doubt and setting aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony, the lack of corroboration for her statements, and the inconsistencies in her version of events at different stages of the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for corroboration when relying on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix and highlighted the importance of evaluating the evidence of a child witness carefully. The court referred to the case of 'State of Rajasthan v. Om Prakash' to support its decision to give the appellant the benefit of doubt.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court were set aside, giving the appellant the benefit of doubt. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case.
S.P. Garg, J.:--
1. The appellant – Nandu Sahani impugns the legality, correctness and propriety of a judgment dated 26.09.2011 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 49/2010 emanating from FIR No. 77/2010 PS Nabi Karim by which he was held guilty for committing offences under Sections 363/354/376 IPC. By a sentence order dated 26.09.2011, he was awarded various prison terms with fine.
2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case as projected in the charge-sheet was that on 06.07.2010, the appellant after kidnapping ‘X’ (assumed name) aged about 10 years outraged her modesty and sexually assaulted her. On 06.07.2010, Const. Darvesh Singh produced ‘X’ and the accused – Nandu Sahani before ASI Ashwani Kumar of PS Nabi Karim, who was on patrolling duty in the area. On enquiry, ‘X’ disclosed that she had accompanied with her father from her village to attend marriage in Delhi. On the way, her father got down at a station to bring water. The train started leaving him behind.
3. ‘X’ in her statement (Ex.PW-1/B) before Child Welfare Committee implicated the accused for committing rape upon her. FIR was subsequently lodged against the appellant and he was arrested. ‘X’ was medically examined; she recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement. Exhibits were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. Statements of the relevant witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant in the Court. To bring home appellant’s guilt, the prosecution examined fourteen witnesses. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant denied his complicity in the crime and pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in his conviction. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, he has preferred the appeal.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. Appellant’s conviction is primarily based upon the sole testimony of ‘X’. Undoubtedly, conviction can be based upon the sole testimony of the prosecutrix provided it lends assurance of her testimony. However, in case the Court has reason not to accept the version of the prosecutrix on its face value, it may look for corroboration. In the instant case, inherent defects emerge in the evidence adduced by the prosecution to establish the appellant’s guilt. Police machinery came into motion when Daily Diary (DD) No. 12A at PS Nabi Karim was recorded at 07.30 A.M. by ASI Ashwani Kumar. It records that an individual who had produced ‘X’ informed that she had separated from her family while travelling in a train. ASI Ashwani Kumar and Const.Sonu took ‘X’ to Lady Harding Medical College, where she was medically examined. Efforts were made to locate the house where ‘X’ intended to go at Sunder Nagri. However, she could not locate it. Since the police was unaware of the family members and their place of residence, ‘X’ was produced before Child Welfare Committee. Daily Diary (DD) No. 12A does not record that ‘‘X’ was in the appellant’s company at the time of her recovery. ‘X’ did not disclose any foul play to the police that time. Record further reveals that the appellant and ‘X’ were brought at the police station and after necessary enquiries when PW-9 (ASI Ashwani Kumar) did not find anything wrong, freed the appellant.
5. Before CWC, Mayur Vihar, ‘X’ was examined by PW-2 (Ms. Mamta Sahai). She directed to conduct her medical examination vide order dated 07.07.2010 (Ex.PW-2/A). Her statement (Ex.PW-1/B), disclosed that she was resident of F-Block, Sunder Nagri and had come to Delhi along with her father to attend the marriage of her Mausi’s daughter. On the way, when her father got down at Motihari Railway Station to bring water, the train started and left him behind. In the train, she met an individual who promised to take her to her house after five days. However, the said person took her to his residence and did “Gandi Harkat”; he urinated in her mouth and gagged it. Thereafter, he did something after putting off her pant and sh
